DHANAK KUMAR Vs. OM PARKASH
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) APPELLANT has challenged the order passed by District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Consumer Complaint No.233/2007, dated 27.05.2009. Appellant has been directed to refund Rs.9,200/ - to the respondent with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint which was filed on 08.08.2007 till its realization. This amount has been ordered to be paid within 30 days after receipt of copy of order. In addition to this, appellant has been burdened with cost of litigation of Rs.2,000/ -.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for appellant, Ms. Neelam Kaplas submitted that accepting everything alleged in complaint to be correct against her client for the sake of argument only, the dispute if any did not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As according to her respondent alleges to have been purchased a buffalo for Rs.9,200/ - which was held out in pregnant and due for delivery after one month of its purchase. Whereas, situation was otherwise according to respondent. Having realized that he was defrauded and mislead by appellant, buffalo was returned by the respondent to the former. But sale consideration of Rs.9,200/ - was not returned by appellant, this resulted in filing of Consumer Complaint No.233/2007 alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant.
(3.) COMPLAINT was contested by appellant, as according to him it was not maintainable, respondent had not come to the Forum with clean hands, and the Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. Respondent was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaint was liable to be dismissed. Sale of buffalo to the respondent by the appellant was specifically denied.
In support of complaint, respondent filed affidavit of Shri Nikko Ram, who stated that the respondent had purchased buffalo from appellant for Rs.9,200/ - in the month of October, 2006 when it was held out that she was pregnant and is due within one month. No receipt was issued of the amount. Besides the deponent Shri Tulsi Ram was also present at that time. When situation regarding pregnancy of buffalo purchased by appellant was found to be otherwise, she was returned to the appellant in November, 2006 who agreed and promised to return the amount. This buffalo was then sold by appellant to Nomad. Thereafter Iqraarnama (agreement) was entered into between the parties, of which the deponent was a marginal witness. Affidavit of Shri Tulsi Ram was also on the same lines. Shri Om Parkash in his affidavit has supported his stand as set out in the complaint.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.